Ladies and gentleman, MSNBC’s finest at work:
The Supreme Court in Heller basically deleted the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd Amendment. #textualism #inners
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) July 25, 2015
Oh, man … this is going to leave a mark:
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/624738421957894144
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/624742071186886657
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/624740890024747013
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/624740213705863169
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/624739013577019392
That’s exactly what he thinks.
More piling on:
@chrislhayes Underpants Gnome constitutionalism:
1. No gun regulations.
2. ???
3. Well-regulated militia!— Ukraineberry Sauce (@UOJim) July 25, 2015
@chrislhayes Chris, in 1875 Supreme Court ruled 2A was never meant to infringe on gun rights or militias
— Sigh-tama (@jewfulnoise) July 25, 2015
@chrislhayes 2A was not implying that militia would be regulated by fed. gov, just that it wouldn't be infringed
— Sigh-tama (@jewfulnoise) July 25, 2015
WTF? You are basically WRONG. https://t.co/lhH6ycDaEj
— Ya Dont Say? (@actually_yeah) July 25, 2015
https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/624748437964222464
https://twitter.com/danielbreid/status/624743968488599552
https://twitter.com/Travesham/status/624736612174458880
"Regulated" in the 2A means "well maintained or disciplined" not laws/regs. You actually have a law degree? #scary https://t.co/zJ1uZ0sDe9
— Craig (@csmjr91090) July 25, 2015
So I guess what I'm getting at is this was a really, really dumb tweet. https://t.co/1IMgmmwXLA
— Griswold Christmas Vacation (@HashtagGriswold) July 25, 2015
Recommended
More to the point, Heller held Congress COULD regulate guns. It only ruled complete bans unconstitutional https://t.co/1IMgmmwXLA
— Griswold Christmas Vacation (@HashtagGriswold) July 25, 2015
You're completely misunderstanding the 1780's definition of "well-regulated." It would have meant "well-trained."https://t.co/1IMgmmwXLA
— Griswold Christmas Vacation (@HashtagGriswold) July 25, 2015
It gets better…
Hayes was challenged to a debate by National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke, which he accepted:
How embarrassing. https://t.co/DF9kUneGum
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) July 25, 2015
@charlescwcooke I think Stevens dissent, even on Scalia's interpretive terms, is massively more persuasive on the meaning of the clause.
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) July 25, 2015
I've asked @chrislhayes if he wants to debate the meaning of the Second Amendment with me on his show. Hoping he'll say yes.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) July 25, 2015
@charlescwcooke yeah we should make it happen.
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) July 25, 2015
Get the popcorn, this is going to be fantastic.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member